Search

Anthony Crosland was the most formative of education ministers in the 1960s whose contribution promoted intellectual activity within the policy discourse. He retains an iconic status for that reason. He provided the intellectual foundations of "revisionism" which emancipated the Labour Party from belief in nationalisation as the way to greater equality. He eschewed the traditional canons of Labour policy which embodied faded value assumptions. He separated values and ideals from the means of achieving them. "The future of socialism" (1956) knocked the ground from under the Marxists' feet by showing that there was no evidence of the pauperisation of the masses or that capitalism was near collapse. There was no necessary link between class and power. The devotion to Clause 4 was misplaced: nationalisation was a means, not an end. Private ownership could be used to advance social ends but not in preference to public ownership. He reviewed education's faults and ways of remedying them. The comprehensive principle must be propagated and public school entry democratised. Education, not nationalisation, would create a more just society. He made a large impact in a short time. He can be criticised for not being more decisive in pursuing his objectives but was unusual as a gifted intellectual who applied knowledge to current policy issues on which he held passionate beliefs.

The paper attempts to identify the extent to which modes of knowledge can be associated with different patterns of and assumptions about power. It discusses the meanings and scope of power itself, i.e. both within and beyond epistemic communities, as against "social robustness" implying more democratic or inclusive forms of evaluation. It analyses the extent to which knowledge has shifted from an internalist perspective relying on the prestige of epistemic communities towards socially relevant assumptions resting within social contexts. It discusses the factors affecting types of power patterns, such as: the nature of sponsors' objectives and the uses to which they might put knowledge; epistemic characteristics; the nature of the resource required, and the stage of finalisation reached. It sketches the range of models of sponsorship to which knowledge is subjected--from that of the free standing and autonomous individual through different patterns of sponsorship to the directly managed. It attempts to link these classifications to a range of empirical examples, including the power of knowledge in government and in crossing the boundaries between universities and industry. In discussing the reciprocal relationships between power and knowledge, it accepts that power affects the identification, use and transmission of knowledge. It is concerned, however, to question over determined perspectives of the relationships between knowledge and power whose mutual impacts may be strong but not easily predicted or defined.

This paper assesses some of the framework issues, of policy and provision, which affect the connections between teaching and research in higher education. The presumption of an essential linkage between research and teaching has in recent years been eroded by the sheer quantities of the system. In spite of the enduring appeal of the Humboldtian model, it was not always assumed in the UK and is not assumed in many other systems. The arguments for and against the connection are noted and assessed. The arguments in favour are mainly in terms of the advantages to research; and arguments from teaching are more difficult to specify. Both sets of considerations entail thought about the nature of knowledge as it is created and mediated through universities, and the corresponding identities and roles of university teachers. A broadening of concept from research to that of disciplined enquiry enables the scope of university forms of enquiry to be widened to include applied research, research and development as well as scholarship. It is argued that all university teachers should be involved in one or other form of disciplined enquiry, even if only a minority can be involved in research in the traditional meanings of the word.

Explores perspectives from which to examine government-university relations in different countries, and discusses examples in the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, and Germany. Trends in Eastern and Central Europe are also considered briefly. Issues of both administration and governance are included. (MSE)